G.R. No. 224052. December 06, 2021
AGDAO LANDLESS RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, INC., PETITIONER, VS. JIMMY EUGENIO, HENRY EUGENIO, LOVELL EUGENIO, TOMAS PERALES AND ELENA CORGIO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Agdao Landless Residents Association, Inc. (ALRAI) filed an unlawful detainer complaint before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Davao City, against respondents Jimmy Eugenio, Henry Eugenio, Lovell Eugenio, Tomas Perales, Elena Corgio, and others. ALRAI claimed to be the registered owner of 15 parcels of land in Bo. Obrero, Davao City, and alleged that respondents, who were not members of the association, were occupying the properties. Despite demands, respondents refused to vacate. The MTCC ruled in favor of ALRAI, ordering respondents to vacate, pay monthly rentals, and pay attorney’s fees. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 11 affirmed the MTCC decision. A writ of execution and a special writ of demolition were issued. During execution, respondents filed a motion to clarify/define the areas to be vacated. The MTCC constituted a Board of Commissioners to conduct a relocation survey. The majority report (by Engrs. Dida and Cubio) found respondents’ structures within ALRAI’s titled property. The MTCC approved this report in an Order dated May 19, 2013, and issued a special order of demolition against some respondents. Respondents filed a notice of appeal from this order, but the MTCC denied it. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari (Rule 65) before the RTC Branch 10, which granted the petition, nullified the MTCC’s order denying the appeal and the special writ of demolition, and directed the MTCC to give due course to the notice of appeal. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC Branch 10 decision. ALRAI elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC Branch 10’s ruling that the MTCC’s Order dated May 19, 2013 (approving the relocation survey report and ordering demolition) was appealable and that the MTCC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying respondents’ notice of appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the MTCC’s Order dated May 19, 2013, which approved the commissioners’ report and specifically ordered the demolition of the structures of certain respondents, was a final order that resolved a distinct and separate issue from the main unlawful detainer case. This order was issued in response to respondents’ motion to clarify the areas to be vacated, a proceeding incidental to execution. The order finally determined the question of whether respondents’ structures were within ALRAI’s property, an issue not definitively settled in the main judgment, which merely ordered respondents to vacate the “properties subject matter of this case” without specific delineation. Consequently, the order was appealable. The MTCC’s denial of respondents’ notice of appeal from this final order constituted grave abuse of discretion. The principle of immutability of judgment was not violated, as the order did not alter the MTCC’s final judgment on the unlawful detainer case but was a separate final order arising from a post-judgment incident. The general rule that orders of execution are not appealable admits of exceptions, such as when the writ of execution varies the judgment. Here, the clarification of the specific areas to be vacated was necessary for the proper execution of the judgment.